Wednesday, December 8, 2010

This survey question is about the absolute biggest moral dilemma in all of EGS. There are those who would consider the acceptance of homosexuality and all that to be a moral dilemma, but I consider that to just be common sense.

In any case, there is potential for great good and great horror depending on how the magic in EGS is used. Used benevolently, it could usher in a golden age. Used malevolently, it could have the potential to literally destroy the world. Note the "literally" there. I'm not talking Fallout games "life goes on" sort of end of the world here (although I really like Fallout 3).

In short, the consequences of it being common knowledge are unknown, which is in part due to the limits of magic being unknown. Odds are some dude with magic can't blow up the planet, but who knows for sure?

With all that said, here is how I originally presented the question (in the interest of full disclosure, I said nothing about "destruction of the world" potential prior to compiling the results):

Saturday, December 4, 2010

I have issues with cable news. Not a specific channel, mind you. My issue is with news running 24/7. Sometimes, there just isn't anything worth reporting, or there's just nothing new to say about the latest big news. If you're a cable news network, however, not only do you have to fill that time, but you have to fill it with things that attract viewers away from other networks. It leads to less than objective, and less accurate, reporting.

That said, even if I don't agree with the hosts, I fully approve of editorial shows on those networks. So long as it's clear that the content of that program is editorial, it reduces the amount of air time devoted to trying to fill the inevitable news voids with sensationalized news.

Granted, I don't watch any of those editorial programs and I've heard bad things about many of the ones that do exist, but I still say that having shows on news networks that aren't desperately trying to fill every moment with shocking up-to-the-minute news could theoretically help keep cable news honest. That said, the survey question:

Monday, November 29, 2010

I'm not sure how survey heavy this week is gonna be. I only asked one last week on account of the holidays, and I'm thinking it's best not to force a question for each update. Quality over quantity, or something... in any case, here's the question from last week:

Saturday, November 27, 2010

I saw Tangled last night with some friends, and it was a fun, cute movie. The characters were likable, the jokes were funny, and the horse may very well be the most awesome horse in all of cinema (take THAT, Mr. Ed!).

One thing that caught me off guard, however, was the singing. I know it's a Disney movie, but none of the previews I saw gave any hint of musical numbers, and I can't think of any 3D rendered movies I've seen that have been musicals. I would say I was fooled by my own prejudices, but based on the marketing strategies of this movie, I think they were deliberately trying to hide all traces of it being a musical.

Seriously, here are the trailers on YouTube (please note: I consider Trailer 2 to contain a few annoying spoilers):

There are at least three things worth noting about the marketing: one, the focus is on the male lead. Two, there is no evidence of singing. Three, the movie was renamed in order to appeal to a wider demographic (it was originally called Rapunzel, after the true lead of the movie and the original fable).

Now, I actually prefer the title Tangled. It makes it sound more like a fractured fairy tale, which I think is more fun and truer in advertising than Rapunzel. It's inspired by Rapunzel and shares several elements, yes, but it's a different story. This is true of a lot of Disney movies, and there are more extreme cases of differing from the source material than this. As such, I'm all for shaking up the titles a bit.

The reasoning behind it, however, and the reason for the misleading marketing is because they were trying to bring in the young male demographic. The directors claim the name change was for a different reason, but is that sort of thing really up to the directors?

Actually, that's an interesting question. Who ultimately decides what to name these things?

Anyway, this is supposedly the result of The Princess and The Frog not doing as well as hoped, which was disappointing to hear. I admit that the film wasn't a masterpiece, but it was good and deserving of success, and I was hoping for more traditionally animated films. The visuals in Tangled are good and I'm fine with it being 3D rendered, but I fear the financial disappointment of The Princess and The Frog may be the final nail in the coffin of traditional movie animation.

Marketing and feeling lied to aside, the movie really was enjoyable, funny, and Rapunzel was very, very cute. And I don't mean "cute" in a "she's so fine" sort of way. I mean cute as in "fuzzy kitten playing with a ball of yarn". It's not forced, either. The character is just naturally adorable. I know some people won't care about or even notice that sort of thing, but I liked it.

Speaking of which, one of my friends who saw the movie with me, well, HATED this movie. He didn't think there was anything there for adults, and while I don't agree with that sentiment, I do concede that there is a lack of hidden adult humor. A lot of family movies and shows will have subtle jokes that go over the heads of children while making the adults laugh. I personally don't think it's a movie adults cannot enjoy, but I do see how some adults wouldn't care for it. If I may be slightly sexist for a moment, I suspect most of these adults will be male, further emphasizing the misleading marketing.

As for the musical aspect of this musical, it really wasn't that great. I remember a lot of the visuals and the words, but I'm honestly having a lot of difficulty recalling any of the melodies. I usually exit a movie with some of its music stuck in my head, musical or not, but I'm drawing a blank on this one. That's not a good sign when the movie is a musical.

The songs weren't terrible or anything, but I don't think they were to the film's benefit. They also lacked subtlety, somewhat beating the audience over the head with the point of the songs. I believe the film could have pulled off greater subtlety without confusing any (well, most) of the younglings in the audience.

In the end, I did really like this movie, and I'm bound to snag it on DVD when it comes out. The marketing of it was somewhat evil, however, and I think it would've been better without the songs.

Labels

All material, unless stated overwise or owned by Blogger, is copyright 2009-2010 Dan Shive.All other copyrighted material is used under terms of fair use. If you are a copyright holder and feel this is not the case, please contact me via my profile.